World Federalists of Canada
Return to Main Menu
Email Us
Membership Form
Canadian nuclear non-proliferation, arms control and disarmament policy (NACD) will be reviewed by a committee of Parliament following a request by Canada's Foreign Affairs Minister, Lloyd Axworthy. The House of Commons Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade will begin hearings soon after Parliament re-convenes, by the third week of February.
Canada does not have nuclear weapons of its own, but is protected by the nuclear arsenal of the United States through its membership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Canada is also part of the North American Aerospace Defence Command (NORAD) which controls a network of radar stations in the Yukon and Northwest Territories.
Axworthy initiated the nuclear policy review in light of two recent developments: 1) the ruling by the International Court of Justice (ICJ, or World Court) on the legal status of nuclear weapons; 2) the report of the Canberra Commission on the Elimination of Nuclear Weapons, an international panel of experts whose work was sponsored by the Australian government.
More generally, there is a growing feeling that the post-Cold War era offers opportunities for disarmament which have not been taken up by the world's nuclear powers, especially the United States and Russia. Last month two recently retired U.S. Generals caused a bit of a stir in Washington when they issued a "Joint Statement on Reduction of Nuclear Weapons Arsenals: Declining Utility, Continuing Risks." General Lee Butler, USAF (Retired) and General Andrew Goodpaster stated in the introduction to their joint statement that "As senior military officers, we have given close attention over many years to the role of nuclear weapons as well as the risks they involve. With the end of the Cold War, these weapons are of sharply reduced utility, and there is much now to be gained by substantially reducing their numbers and lowering their alert status, meanwhile exploring the feasibility of their ultimate complete elimination."
In the post -Cold War era the risks of superpower nuclear confrontation have declined. However, the dangers of nuclear proliferation - smaller and middle powers acquiring nuclear weapons and nuclear know-how - have increased. Political debate on ways to curb the nuclear threat is increasingly a matter of concern to the entire international community, not just the nuclear weapons states. It is hard to disagree with the proposition of the Canberra Commission, that, "The proposition that nuclear weapons can be retained in perpetuity and never used - accidentally or by decision - defies credibility."
The nuclear weapons policy review could enable Canada to add its voice to the growing call for reduction and eventual elimination of nuclear weapons. But the politicians need to know that people still care. It is important that Canadians demonstrate to the Foreign Affairs Committee their continuing interest in the nuclear weapons issue. A strong demonstration of public support for a better Canadian arms control and disarmament policy will enhance the prospects of our government taking a progressive stand within NATO and at the United Nations.
Background
(1) World Court ruling
Last July, the International Court of Justice (ICJ, or World Court) said in an Advisory Opinion, that use or threat of use of nuclear weapons "would generally be contrary to the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, and in particular the principles and rules of humanitarian law." It also found that "in view of the current state of international law and of the elements of fact at its disposal, the Court cannot conclude definitively whether the threat or use of nuclear weapons would be lawful or unlawful in an extreme circumstance of self-defence, in which the very survival of a State would be at stake."
The bench divided 7 to 7 on that equivocal statement, and was able to act only with the casting vote of its President, Mohammed Bedjaoui of Algeria. However, the even split of the vote did not reflect the real philosophical division among the Judges, three of whom voted against that part of the Opinion because they believed that not even "extreme circumstances" would justify the threat or use of nuclear weapons. The split was thus 10 to 4 substantively (i.e. four judges who thought threat or use of nuclear weapons to be legal, and ten who thought threat or use to be illegal in any circumstance or illegal "generally").
The Court noted that there is in neither customary nor conventional international law any comprehensive and universal prohibition of the threat or use of nuclear weapons. Nor is there any specific authorization of the threat or use of nuclear weapons.The law they relied upon in forming their opinion includes the Charter of the United Nations, the 'Laws of War' (Hague Conventions, Geneva Conventions, Genocide Convention), the Nuremburg principles and resolutions of the UN General Assembly.
The main Opinion, that threat or use of nuclear weapons is illegal generally, confirmed that the Laws of War apply to nuclear weapons and that the Court must "take into account the unique characteristics of nuclear weapons, and in particular their destructive capacity, their capacity to cause untold human suffering and their ability to cause damage to generations to come." The Court emphasized that "use of nuclear weapons could constitute a catastrophe for the environment."
Finally, the Court was unanimous in calling for complete nuclear disarmament. It stated, "In the long run, international law, and with it the stability of the international order which it is intended to govern, are bound to suffer from the continuing difference of views with regard to the legal status of weapons as deadly as nuclear weapons. . . . There exists an obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control."
(2) Canberra Commission
The Canberra Commission on the Elimination of Nuclear Weapons was sponsored by the Government of Australia and includes an international panel of experts drawn mostly from the diplomatic community. Three of the seventeen commissioners formerly held high ranking positions in the armed forces of the U.S. and Britain. The Australian Government submitted the Report last fall to the 51st session of the UN General Assembly and Conference on Disarmament.
The Commission's report sets forth a program of phased reductions of nuclear weapons, leading to their complete elimination. The report sets elimination as a long term goal, while placing most of its energy on steps which could be taken immediately and reinforcing steps to be taken over the next few years.
Some of the immediate steps called for include;
These steps would signal the serious intentions of the nuclear powers to pursue nuclear disarmament. This foundation would be reinforced by:
The World Court Opinion and the Canberra Commission have given a big boost to the disarmament movement world wide. They help keep open longer the window of opportunity for nuclear disarmament created by the end of the Cold War.
At the United Nations, the General Assembly, by a vote of 115 in favour, 22 against and 32 abstentions, adopted a resolution introduced by Malaysia following up the World Court's decision on the legal status of nuclear weapons by calling for negotiations in 1997 leading to the early conclusion of a Nuclear Weapons Convention which would prohibit the development, production, testing, deployment, stockpiling, transfer, threat or use of nuclear weapons. This is the first time the UN has specifically called for negotiations leading to the conclusion of a comprehensive nuclear weapons convention. Previous UN resolutions on nuclear disarmament have either been on partial steps towards nuclear disarmament, or calls of a more general nature without the end goal of a nuclear weapons convention specified.
Many of the NGOs which were instrumental in the World Court Project, campaigning to get the question of the legal status of nuclear weapons before the ICJ, have now formed Abolition 2000. Taking its cue from the ICJ ruling that "There exists an obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control," the coalition calls for negotiations for a treaty to abolish nuclear weapons to begin by the year 2000.
World Federalist Analysis
World Federalists of Canada were part of the World Court Project and are members of Abolition 2000. (In Canada there is also a computer network of disarmament NGOs called the Canadian Network to Abolish Nuclear Weapons. You can access the computer conference at: plough@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca. Ask to be put on the CNANW.)
A recent meeting of WFCs governing Council included discussion of a draft outline of a WFC Brief to the Foreign Affairs Committee. Council decided on a balance including long term and short term recommendations. The two main recommendations to the SCFAIT to be made by WFC are: 1) that the Committee recommend that Canada make nuclear weapons abolition a goal of Canadian foreign policy; 2) that the Committee recommend that Canada urge NATO adoption of a no first use policy.
Recommended Action
We suggest making your views known to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade. Letters should be addressed to: Mr. Bill Graham Chair, Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade C/O Janis Hilchie, Clerk House of Commons Committees Directorate 6th floor, Wellington Building Ottawa, Ont. K1A 0A6
In your letter be sure to ask that a copy of your correspondence be distributed to other members of the Foreign Affairs Committee.
Letters to Canada's UN Ambassador should be sent to:
His Excellency Robert Fowler Ambassador and Permanent Representative of Canada to the United Nations Permanent Mission of Canada to the United Nations 885 2nd Ave. West 14th floor New York, NY 10017 U.S.A.
There is no single resolution that Ambassador Fowler should be asked to support. We recommend putting your views to Ambassador Fowler through a more open-ended question, making reference to the ECOSOC recommendation to the General Assembly. Ask him what Canada is doing to ensure a progressive response by the General Assembly to the ECOSOC recommendation. You might ask also about whether Canada supports the proposal for a forum of NGOs as proposed by the Commission on Global Governance.
If possible, send a copy of your letter to Canada's Foreign Affairs Minister. These letters can be directed to: Hon. Lloyd Axworthy Minister for Foreign Affairs Lester B. Pearson Building 125 Sussex Drive Ottawa, Ont. K1A 0G2
This paper was prepared by Fergus Watt
at the WFC national office with files from the international World Federalist
Movement (New York) and the Partners Program of the U.S. World Federalist
Association (Washington).